[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [bt-spec] FW: Issue 89
Mark, Can you make your questions explicit .. I only see highlighted text ?? I very disappointed that you feel that I do not answer your questions ?? Always happy to elaborate .. I feel a conf call my serve as a better medium ... I will be unable to make the conf call next Wednesday as I will be with a client .. therefore, please provide some suitable dates / times .... 9pm PST works on the 25th / 29th April. Mark Little wrote: > Geoff, I'd be happy if you could also answer all other queries in the marked > up Word document and previous emails on this subject. They are all meant to > be constructive, despite what you may feel. As I have said time and time > again, if you can show that this is a useful thing to do then I believe we > should consider it. However, you have not done that and perhaps that is > simply down to mis-communication. I know that HP is not the only company on > the committee that feels the same and that others have expressed this in > same concern in face-to-face meetings. > > The fact that you continue not to answer these real issues does not do this > issue any good. I know that we are all busy with other things, but if you > feel strongly about this issue then I hope you will find the time to try to > convince myself and others. > > Mark. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Geoffrey Brown" <Geoffrey.Brown@oracle.com> > To: "WEBBER,JIM (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex1)" <jim_webber@hp.com> > Cc: "Bt-Spec" <bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>; "Brown,Geoffrey" > <GEOFFREY.BROWN@oracle.com> > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 7:42 PM > Subject: Re: [bt-spec] FW: Issue 89 > > > Hi Jim, > > > > As this is a constructive request from yourself (HP) I am happy to > elaborate > > elaborate. Considering that the BTP contains a huge amount of TP Gurus > this > > should make sense .. I hope ;-) > > > > The issue : > > ----------- > > > > It is very attractive to gain "peer" level inter operability with the BTP > TM, by > > "peer" level inter operability I mean the ability of a non-BTP TM to > collect the > > state ( on demand ) and therefore continue execution within a traditional > TP > > infrastructure. > > > > A natural by-product of this approach is that it provides much greater > levels of > > HA. > > > > Where this comes from : > > ------------------------- > > > > My experience with integrating transactional application and navigating > supply > > chains ( i.e. vendors apps et al ) is that one has to "patch" together > > transactional state across TPMs. This is a well known problem that many > SIs > > face, due to limitations with TP monitors this is usually addressed by > > asynchronous messaging. Ironically this is exactly why TP monitors can not > be > > used across the web today ; I architected Oracle's Message Broker for this > very > > reason. > > > > Summary : > > ----------- > > > > This is not rocket science .. this is common sense. Bindings allow > > "client-server" inter operability only. Let me be clear that bindings are > needed > > but I feel they do not address the aforementioned problem .. *IF* the BTP > > committee want a truly *OPEN* transaction infrastructure then this > proposal > > addresses the problem. > > > > Again I propose this approach as an "optional" part of the BTP spec - for > large > > scale complex transactional infrastructures. The BTP TM should only render > its > > current state in XML on DEMAND and not for every single operation. > > > > If there are any constructive alternatives please let me know as I will be > very > > happy to apply these to the real-world problems that the industry faces. > > > > Geoff. > > > > > > "WEBBER,JIM (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex1)" wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > I've just read Geoff's document and Mark's comments. Now I am perfectly > > > willing to accept that I might be being naïve here, but could someone > please > > > clarify for me what precisely the benefits of sharing state in a common > > > format are? I can well enough see the drawbacks for myself, but I am > rather > > > finding the benefits difficult to quantify. > > > > > > I don't have an objection to J2EE (or any other platform for that > matter) > > > interop with BTP, but does sharing of state (as opposed to say defining > > > standard bindings at the message level) really achieve that objective in > a > > > straightfoward way? > > > > > > Again, this isn't a rebuttal to the Oracle/Choreology suggestion, more > of a > > > plea for help in understanding its value. > > > > > > Ta. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > > > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > >
Attachment:
Geoffrey.Brown.vcf
Description: Card for Geoffrey Brown
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC